Talk:List of military occupations

Golan Heights and East Jerusalem

The Israeli military does not control those areas (Israel itself does, like Tel Aviv). As such, there is no claim to these areas being occupied militarily. To quote the Wikipedia page for "military occupation": "Military occupation... is temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a sovereign territory that is outside of the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory" A3811 (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Please don't remove sourced content without giving a valid reason (the above doesn't qualify). M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The sources are being misused. None of the source on the matter mention military occupation! There are no valid sources for military occupation in E Jlm A3811 (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@A3811: See Al Jazeera - “During the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel occupied the Golan Heights. It currently controls 1,200sq km (463sq miles) of the western part of the region. Almost immediately after the Israeli military occupied it, Israeli settlements began to grow. Today, more than 30 Israeli settlements are in the area, where more than 25,000 Jewish Israelis live.” + The New York Times “The Golan Heights Annexed By Israel In Abrupt Move”. There are sources. So, yes, there are valid sources for the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, which is the title of a Wikipedia article as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter that source does not refer to military occupation. Military occupation is, according to Wikipedia, "hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a sovereign territory that is outside of the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory". However, the Golan is in the sovereign territory of Israel since its annexation. There are no source referring to it as military occupation - simply put, it is not.

Same goes for E Jlm A3811 (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@A3811: Foreign Policy: "Syrians in the Golan continue to live under Israeli military occupation as well." Source right there. Also, I am concerned that you stated the sources above "does not refer to military occupation" and that "There are no source referring to it as military occupation". I just listed one directly stating that. But more concerning is that the New York Times source above states "The area had been held under military occupation since Israel captured it from Syria in the 1967 war." As you have now directly claimed that sentence does not actually refer to military occupation, I would like you to explain what The New York Times meant with that sentence. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The NYT article was written in 1981. The Golan was indeed held under military occupation, (as the article states) from 1967, until 1981 - when it was annexed (the event the article is reporting). Since it was annexed it is of course not under military occupation. The sovereign is the State of Israel, it's not occupied by the IDF A3811 (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

"according to Wikipedia" is not a policy-based argument. Also, please read WP:NOTADVOCACY. Statements like "the Golan is in the sovereign territory of Israel since its annexation" presents the particular view of the Israeli government as if it is an objective fact. There is no policy-based reason for Wikipedia editors to do that on talk pages. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done As you have given no policy-based reasons to remove the information, it shall not be removed from the article, as secondary reliable sources, as listed above, stated it is a military occupation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Which secondary reliable sources? You claimed a NYT article - which refered to military occupation of the Golan until 1981! Since then it is in Israel's sovereign territory - yes, objectively. The Israeli law defined that the Israeli law and sovereignty apply to the Golan. Just like the US deifined that American law applies to California, Alaska etc. The other source is an opinion article (and outdated - US recognized Golan).

But again, the main point is that is doesn't fit the definiton of military occupation! The criteria for inclusion here is "temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a sovereign territory that is outside of the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory".

The Israeli control is not temporary - is has been defined in law. Is it also not controled by a "military apparatus" - it is under Israeli sovereignty, enforced by civil Law.

Legally speaking, the Golan is the same as Tel Aviv

Please respond to these remarks. Also see the discussion on the talk page for "Military occupation". A3811 (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@A3811: I'm new to this discussion:

• The "temporary" attribute in some definitions of military occupation reflects the international desire to see an end to vestiges of military conflict. When a nation internationally recognized as being in military occupation of a territory claims to annex that territory, the international response is often to deem the annexation unacceptable, the occupation ongoing, and an acceptable end to the conflict still pending. (Exception: India's 1961 annexation of Goa and other districts.) Related: some prefer the term "provisional" over "temporary".
• The "military" attribute reflects the means of enforcing effective control. The key is that the occupant continually "exercises the functions of government" (GCIV, Art 6). Local police maintaining control after an annexation that is not widely recognized could be viewed by the international community as performing a military role, despite where the organization fits in an org chart.
• Different people have used international law to reach many different conclusions, including the legality of defensive conquest in 1967, but I haven't seen your arguments in reliable sources. However straightforward it might seem to apply international legal definitions to specific cases, doing so on your own without reliable sources is original research.

Dotyoyo (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Historical occupation: Kursk

Ukrainian occupation of parts of Kursk Oblast (incl. Sudzha) is still ongoing so it should not be listed under "Historical Occupation." It is listed under "Ongoing Occupation" anyway. Redbeansoup (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Beshogur (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Redbeansoup (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Ruthenia

User:OrionNimrod Your arguments strengths lay only in their own words. Sources, such as, but not limited to 1985 Eastern European Quarterly, Hungarian And Soviet Efforts To Possess Ruthenia, 1938–1945 by Peter Pastor in "the Historian", "Lessons from a Natural Experiment in Carpathian Ukraine" -Keith Darden Yale University, "Contribution to the Background of the Ethnic Conflicts in the Carpathian Basin' Károly Kocsis 1994 Geo Journal, and numerous other. Even a lazy ass google search brings, Britanica, Reproduced from the Collections of the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, an interview with a Holocaust Survivor, and since its actually uncontroversial it wouldn't be hard to keep going. Do you happen you happen to have sources for your original research?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Serialjoepsycho

First Vienna Award

I can say the same: Time machine logic? If I have a wife, if I divorce 10 years later, then I sexual abused my wife many years long and my children are illegal just because the divorce treaty makes null the previous marriage treaty? OrionNimrod (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Is that to say you don't have a source?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

There is an article about it itself: First Vienna Award, lets talk about first Czechoslovakia and not about that 1 day lived Carpatho Ukraine. There are 2 rows in the chart. Czechoslovakia signed the treaty in 1938 which reverted back the Hungarian majority regions to Hungary which regions were part of Hungary for more than 1000 years long before Czechoslovakia established and got that land after the World War I in 1920 only for 18 years. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The article itself in the lead say this definition: "As currently understood in international law, "military occupation" is the effective military control by a power of a territory outside of said power's recognized sovereign territory."

This user put that Carpatho Ukraine thing in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_military_occupations&diff=prev&oldid=963296202

"Ukraine signed a treaty with Austria and Germany", so in this case he deleted because it was a treaty.

Regarding the 1939 annexation of the remaining part of Transcarpathia (which was also part of Hungary for more than 1000 years): Carpatho-Ukraine was not an internationally recognized state, so we could not violate its "recognized sovereign territory" as the article claim that definiton. OrionNimrod (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

So the article itself the First Vienna Award is a Wikipedia article and specifically not a reliable source and I listed multiple sources above that discuss the situation with Carpathian Ruthenia as an occupation. You notably haven't provided a source at all. You instead provided your own original research. The 1985 East European Quarterly article Carpatho-Ukraine: A people in search of their identity by Ivan Rudnytsky, discusses "Hitler's authorization for the occupation of Carpatho-Ukraine by Hungary.." And it's wikipedia policy that defines inclusion criteria. And your use of we "so we could not violate" sounds alot like WP:RGW you are trying to right a great wrong. So, reliable sources suggest these two areas were occupied by Hungary, you haven't provided any source, wikipedia is not WP:NOTSOURCE a reliable source. You are using your own original research and not based on reliable sources, but you can't use original research WP:NOR. And Wikipedia is not a forum, so lets not talk about "Greater Hungary".-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Serialjoepsycho,

did you notice that I removed 2 rows? You talk about only Carpatho-Ruthenia. I talk now about the first row:

I talk about this treaty in 1938 and not about Carpatho Ruthenia in 1939 but I now talk about southern area of Czechoslovakia: there are plenty of sources in this long article: First Vienna Award

I talk about the purple area: File:Territorial gains of Hungary 1938-41 en.svg

The Vienna Award got those purple areas to Hungary: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Czechoslovak-history/The-breakup-of-the-republic#ref468716

This List of military occupations article says: "As currently understood in international law, "military occupation" is the effective military control by a power of a territory outside of said power's recognized sovereign territory."

The First Vienna Award was a treaty signed by many parties including Czechoslovakia. Signed 2 November 1938 and AFTER Hungarian troops entered 5-10 November 1938. Which means the signed reaty recognized the border changes, so how can fit this event to this article which claim an exact definition? OrionNimrod (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I've discussed both Carpatho-Ruthenia and Carpatho-Ukraine above, so yes I noticed you removed two rows since I discussed them both which goes to show you are taking part in a discussion without actually reading anything that has been typed. Sources say that this was an occupation and you haven't provided a source that provides an alternative perspective. You have provided your own original research in. If you could find (and you can't) a source for your perspective these entries would still stay because reliable sources say that this was an occupation. The First Vienna Award is a treaty that carries zero weight as the Nazi's and their Hungarian collaborators lost the war and that treaty was declared null and void, but none of that actually matters because it is the view of multiple reliable sources that this was an Occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The first row is about Czechoslovakia, of course Hungarian troops occupied the region after the signed treaty. Like Czech and Romanian troops occupied Hungarian regions earlier, even before any treaty, it seems those are not in the list...

That is not my original research to see what is the article say itself, that we list here only not legal military occupations. In 1938 it was no any WW2 when the treaty was signed, and your time machine logic is weird. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

You are arguing that something should be removed because something else is not on the list? I'm sure everything will be on the list by the completion deadline of the article WP:DEADLINE. There's nothing to debate and this isn't a forum. If you are suggesting that something shouldn't be included because it is a "legal military occupation" then I have to go. Competence is Required WP:CIR to edit Wikipedia. I refer you again to the multiple sources above. Rudnytsky alone would be good enough for inclusion but the view that this was an occupation is prominent and quite a bit more widespread than just him.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Please show me any source that occupation of Czechoslovakia southern area by Hungary (purple 1938 File:Territorial gains of Hungary 1938-41 en.svg) was not by after Czechoslovakia signed the treaty about the new borders. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Czechoslovak-history/The-breakup-of-the-republic#ref468716 By the Vienna Award (Nov. 2, 1938), Hungary was granted one-quarter of Slovak and Ruthenian territories.

https://hi-storylessons.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Hungary’s-territory-is-revised-after-the-First-Vienna-Award-November-2-1938.pdf Meanwhile, as a part of the agreement known as the First Vienna Award, on November 2, 1938, an arbitration award made by the German and Italian foreign ministers at the Munich conference returned the southern part of Slovakia’s highland regions to Hungary.

https://kisebbsegkutato.tk.hu/uploads/files/olvasoszoba/intezetikiadvanyok/Minority_hungarian_communities.pdf The situation prompted Hungary to press for Great-Power support for its territorial objectives, where possible seeking peaceful, diplomatic means of attaining them, although this was only successful for the predominantly Hungarian-inhabited parts of Czechoslovakia, recovered in the autumn of 1938

The territory granted to Hungary by the First Vienna Award was occupied in the first half of November 1938. After twenty years of Czechoslovak rule, the “return” was greeted by most of the population of former Upper Hungary with euphoria, as an act of historical justice.

Britain and France endorsed the First Vienna Award, with some reservations, although they had played no part in arbitrating it OrionNimrod (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

So what you are saying is WP:IDHT. I've already listed off multiple high quality sources above, such as Rudnytsky. They all say, that this was an occupation. Your sources offer nothing to the discussion. You are basically arguing the legitimacy of the First Vienna Award, which is original research and horse shit. The Nazi's and their collaborators lost and in the Treaty of Paris, the very First Vienna Award you are so vigorously defending was declared null and void. The Treaty of Paris having a legal effect and the First Vienna Award lacking all legitimacy. That doesn't even matter because it goes back to what the sources say, its an occupation. Axis 0, Allied 1. THE NAZI's lost.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually you showed something about 1939 Carpatho Ukraine thing not about the 1938 Vienna Award regarding the purple region which is separately in the list. So you say when Czecoslovakia signed the treaty to give back areas to Hungary they had a time machine and they knew that treaty is not legal because many years later an another treaty changed that? OrionNimrod (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This will be my last response to any WP:IDHT. I have provided multiple sources about that discussed multiple sources above that discuss both Carpatho-Ruthenia and Carpatho-Ukraine as being under occupation by Hungary during World War II. And because the sources are reliable, the entries belong. There's nothing to even to discuss after that. However you feel the need to discuss how Hungary in active participation with a hostile Nazi Germany got the territory thru treaty. And when the bad guys, Hungary, lost the treaty was declared null and void. Hungarian irredentism or Greater Hungary was chopped off at its feet and the land it took was returned. If you want to go dig thru the treaty of Paris, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Documents, Volume IV, a really dig into why Czechoslovakia reasoning was to create a full nullity to where nothing of it was ever legal. Maybe it was in respect to the many Czechoslovak, Soviet, or Ukrainian Insurgent Army Partisans that went around kicking Hungarian and Nazi ass but that's just speculation and as irrelevant as discussing the First Vienna Award which is Fully Null and Void. But to say this again for the umpteenth time, Because reliable sources say it was occupied by Hungary it should be included. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Border changes by the Vienna Award got international recognition in that time when it was signed by Czechoslovakia and Hungary. I provided also sources, while your argument is the "occupation" word.

The article should be consistent with its own definition, or if it is not, then every single territorial change ever made is a military occupation. Every country naturally keeps its own territory under military occupation, those occupations listed here which are contrary to international recognition.

I am talking about the purple areas not the blue one, you talk always about the blue one.

You still keep talk about Carpatho Ukraine in 1939, why? I talk about First Vienna Award and the purple southern areas.

You wants to project a future event (1947) back into the past (1938), which violates the laws of modern physics. OrionNimrod (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:CIR-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Serialjoepsycho,

WP:CIR I can see that by your side: inconsistency in the article own definition + time machine + I talk about the Vienna Award and purple areas in 1938 while you keep talking about the blue areas in 1939.

It seems you does not understand that a future event cannot change the past in time.

You quoted this source: https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/Transcarpathia-in-Czechoslovakia "In November Hungary occupied a strip of territory including the Carpatho-Ukrainian capital of Uzhhorod" = Vienna Award in November 1938

I quote the same source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Czechoslovak-history/The-breakup-of-the-republic "By the Vienna Award (Nov. 2, 1938), Hungary was granted one-quarter of Slovak and Ruthenian territories."

"Granted" = That occupation happened after signing a treaty which changed the border, which means this occupation event does not fit in the article.

(Follow your logic you can add that Czechoslovakia occupied Transcarpathia in 1920 because of Treaty of Trianon granted that area, and after WW2 Soviet Union annexed that area by new treaty, so the previous treaty became null regarding that area, but this would be also not fit in the article because of the above reasons.) OrionNimrod (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

My logic: Reliable sources say it was an occupation so it belongs. Your argument: WP:IJDLT and original research. There's you and then there is Ivan Rudnytsky. There's you and there's Raz Segal discussing how the occupation was viewed in 38 and 39 in 'Becoming Bystanders: Carpatho-Ruthenians, Jews, and the Politics of Narcissism in Subcarpathian Rus'. The evidence for it being an occupation is great and the evidence against doesn't stand at all without your own personal original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Serialjoepsycho

Please finish claiming WP:IDHT or WP:CIR and read back carefully you arguments, which suffer from the beginning causative problems.

The sources provided by Orionnimrod presented are also reliable, moreover it does not contradict on the matter your sources, they are just more broadly and accurately tell about the situation. If you do not see the "umpteenth" time that the article's scope ("military occupation" is the effective military control by a power of a territory outside of said power's recognized sovereign territory) is outside from these events as they became this case the power's sovereign territory, the problem is on your side.

The two events occured BEFORE the second World War, then there were no "Allies" or whatsoever and it is indifferent what happened a few years later, we also do not put on the list that the Western Roman Empire is currently under the military occupation of nearly 20 states, or that any border changes and new legal sovereignty settled by the Treaty of Berlin in 1878 has been just an occupation, because in 1995 the Dayton Agreement was signed. CriticKende (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem with his is they are primary sources that depend on his analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. Which is original research. Also lets pretend he had quality sources that didn't depend entirely on the argument he's laid out, NPOV wouldn't have us remove a listing because their are contradicting sources. While we certainly don't have to grant equal validity, we'd consider the weight of the sources. While the event took place before World War II, they lost World War II and signed a treaty to nullify the event you are discussing, also an event that Deák, as pointed out below, has described as illegal in the first place. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho, do you aware that your source (Britannica) (not really my personal source) say that occupation was because of the treaty? Do you aware that article is listing occupations which is not recognized borders? WP:CIR

Hammond Map Map from USA map makers 1938 [1] Map title: "showing new frontiers after conference" It shows the ceded Czechoslovakia areas by treaties including the Vienna Award (Czechoslovakia territories to Germany, to Poland, to Hungary) (perhaps Poland also occupied not legally Czechoslovakia by your logic?) = those were international recognized legal border changes.

Another USA map from National Geographic Magazin from 1939 [2] It shows pre WW2 recognized borders. We can cleary see the regions which was granted to Hungary by Vienna Award (areas above Danube which is purple in the above vector map)

French map from 1939-40 [3] Again we can see Hungarian borders as in the recognized treaty. While we can see it clearly make color difference Polish area which was occupied by Germany in war.

OrionNimrod (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Segal's was from 2010 and Rudnytsky's from 1985. And that's not even to go thru every other source being clear that the position it was an occupation. Two sources. The maps don't offer any argument, they are primary sources and it's your personal argument that stands out which is original research. Meanwhile Segal is respected historian known for writing about the holocaust in Carpathian Ruthenia, a secondary source, and it's his position that this was an occupation. And Rudnytsky is a Ukrainian historian who published that article in a peer reviewed magazine, also a secondary source, its position was that Carpatho-Ukraine was occupied. The fact is its not hard to find a reliable source that suggests this was a case of occupation. You can't offer a position that isn't simply original research. Meanwhile, "...so we could not violate its "recognized sovereign territory"...", your comments betray you as being here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Not that you are actually reading a damn thing, WP:NOTLEAD Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. You don't even actually make a good argument. "Blah blah blah time machine, blah blah blah, my interpretation of these primary sources and my synthesis of those sources means".. Losing the war has consequences. In this case the "Nullity" Czechoslovakia requested was granted. The First Vienna award was declared null and void, and as such has no legal effect. But to get back on topic, what matters is what the sources say. This conversation is over, good bye. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I TALK ABOUT THE PURPLE AREA = Frist Vienna Award 1938 (NOT about the blue area = Carpatho-Ukraine 1939)

Hi Serialjoepsycho,

You did not show any source from Segal/Rudnytsky, please link them.

I see you still talk about the blue regions (Carpatho-Ukraine), do you understand that I talk about the purple regions: Yes or No? WP:CIR

Why do you ignore your own Brittanica source? (not really my thought and not my original research) Which say "By the Vienna Award (Nov. 2, 1938), Hungary was granted one-quarter of Slovak and Ruthenian territories". https://www.britannica.com/topic/Czechoslovak-history/The-breakup-of-the-republic#ref468716

Of course Hungary occupied the purple area after the new border treaty was signed in 1938 and the occupation process was recognized by the legal border change. The article own definition: listing only occupations which areas was outside the occupier recognized sovereign territory. And that purple area territory change was recognized by treaty, that is why Hungary occupied it.

You keep refering 1947 Paris treaty which cancelled the 1938 Vienna Award, yes everybody know that treaty changed the previous one, but that is your the time machine logic, a future event in 1947 cannot change the past what was in 1938, because in 1938 the Vienna treaty was valid and legal.

Quotes from New York Times and Times (not really my thought and not my original research): "reunited Hungary" + "new borders" + "returned territory to Hungary" + "new frontiers does full justice" + "general readjustment of borders" + "Hungary receives territory by Vienna Award " + "ceded territories"

(USA) New York Times 1938 - First Vienna Award: Recognized Hungarian-Czechoslovak border changes

(British) Times 1938 - First Vienna Award: Recognized Hungarian-Czechoslovak border changes

OrionNimrod (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not required to link the sources, nor am I inclined to do so WP:PAYWALL. I gave you the author, title, and publications of multiple sources. The fact is there are secondary sources that say this was an occupation vs the sources that fully require your commentary, which is original research. Segal/2010-Rudnytsky/1985 describe it in their own words as an occupation, both the listing you tried to delete. You are trying to delete them because you are a biased SPA here on Wikipedia to right the great wrongs for Hungary. WP:IJDLT isn't removal criteria.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk)

Your time machine argument is bullshit and shows your fundamental lack of knowledge of international law. Each country is an individual actor and they can decide what they recognize or choose not to recognize. But here's the kicker, Hungary signed the treaty of Paris in 1947. The specifically agreed to it and they agreed to it fully without reservations. They recognized that the First Vienna Award was null, void, and without legal effect. Stop pining me, you don't have a damn thing to say that's worth my time.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Serialjoepsycho, you say a source, I asked that source, you cannot and even do not want to show that source (even that source not in the article), which means we have only your own words. Wikipedia is based on reliable academic sources Wikipedia:Attribution + Wikipedia:No original research.

While I provided many sources, even your sources (Britannica) which clearly say Hungary was granted that land by treaty. Why do you ignore deliberately those sources? Of course it was an occupation by Hungary, after when the treaty was signed, so it does not mean anything if you obsessed with the "occupation" word, as article own definition says we list here occupations on areas which was outside recognized borders of the occupiers. Please show me your source which say it was not a recognized area in 1938 which was occupied by Hungary in 1938. Do not need repeat your time machine with Paris treaty 1947 which cancelled the previous Vienna Award, Vienna Award borders changes happened in 1938 and not in the future. When Hungary signed the actual 1947 treaty then Hungarian administration was not there anymore as the lands which granted by Vienna treaty was reverted, but it does not change the fact that in 1938 the area was recognized Hungarian land by the actual treaty. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Raz Segal 'Becoming Bystanders: Carpatho-Ruthenians, Jews, and the Politics of Narcissism in Subcarpathian Rus', The 1985 East European Quarterly article Carpatho-Ukraine: A people in search of their identity by Ivan Rudnytsky, Hungarian And Soviet Efforts To Possess Ruthenia, 1938–1945 by Peter Pastor in "the Historian", "Lessons from a Natural Experiment in Carpathian Ukraine" -Keith Darden Yale University, "Contribution to the Background of the Ethnic Conflicts in the Carpathian Basin' Károly Kocsis 1994 Geo Journal are amongst the number of sources I have provided that say this was an occupation. Britannica is a tertiary source and it actually also says that it was an occupation. The list gives only that they take place after 1907 as a criteria. Where it defines occupation it's only trying to give a succinct definition of the most current definition and it's not a straw to grasp at or criterion. And 1907 it was largely unaddressed before 1899 and then still mostly customary international law until first codified and clarified in the 1907 Hague convention. Things have changed since such as the 1945 UN Charter which banned wars of aggression to procure territory, written in response to the wars of aggression by the Axis powers of which Hungary was a part. Following the War that 1947 treaty that Hungary signed and fully agreed to specifically states that the treaty you hung up on as a legal, The First Vienna Award, was never legal at all. All Territory was returned to whom ever had title on the basis that it was never legal in the first place. The 1947 treaty doesn't change the fact that those evil Hungarian Nazi Puppets weren't doing anything considered illegal until 1947 when was declared so and their representatives agreed. But in case you missed the calendar its 2025 and since 1947 their disgraceful action has been null and void, with the absolutely nullity written in at the request of Czechoslovakia and agreed to by Hungary. And your sources, lets be clear, mostly primary, all based not on their own merit but your dialogue here. And what's this? Subcarpathian Ruthenia was the official name for the territory is Czechoslovakia? It was granted Autonomy is 1938 renamed itself Carpatho-Ukraine and on March 15th 1939 declared independence but was what? It was in the midst of what? In the midst of occupation by Hungarian troop. Wait that contradicts your argument that this source was fully supporting your claim. This is fucking waste of oxygen. With the excess of sources that can be effortlessly found this is non-controversial. And I'm sure by the deadline WP:DEADLINE some one can stick one of the many sources I've provided in the list or one the many other sources that are available for this uncontroversial listing. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Serialjoepsycho,

I talk about purple area and not about blue area, while you keep talking about 1939. Do you understand that I talk about 1938? YES or NO?

As I said many times, I will talk about first 1938 Vienna Award not 1939 Carpatho-Ukraine thing. Your source about 1938 purple area: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Czechoslovak-history/The-breakup-of-the-republic#ref468716 "By the Vienna Award (Nov. 2, 1938), Hungary was granted one-quarter of Slovak and Ruthenian territories" Why do you deny your own source?

Please allow me to refuse such remarks I would miss the calendar, not I am the one who repeatedly try time travelling:) I understand your deep emotions, but you permanently confuse the World War II with the interwar period, then events we discuss about happened before the war, and they have genuine connection to closing treaty of the WW1, not WWII (Hungary was not an Axis Power then, neither a puppet in 1938). The "evilness" quite interesting, so you say that force detaching from Hungary 1000+ years old Hungarian lands with full Hungarian populatated areas (1/3 Hungarians from all Hungarians) was a "goodness" thing, but if Hungary by new treaty in 1938 without any war got back the Hungarian majority regions, that was "evilness" thing. I do not think that personal emotions is the topic in this article.

Your arguments: "occupation" word in sources + time machine that an event 1947 can change an event 1938 what was actually in 1938 :) I provided many readable sources, maps to support my talking, but you just list a lot of sources name, but we need to know the exact content and sentences in those sources what they claim exactly. I see you deny your own Britannica source about 1938 border change, which suggest it can be the same situation regarding your listed sources. As I said, it was "occupation", but it was after the signing the Vienna treaty in 1938. Like Poland occupied former east Germany after WW2 by new border treaty: Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II#/media/File:Curzon line en.svg. The article own definition: listing only occupations which areas was outside the occupier recognized sovereign territory. It does not matter that you find "occupy" word rearding that event, as this occupation was by the consequence of recognized border change, so this occupation do not fit in this article.

Concerning the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty, your statements are nonsensical, the treaty does not contain anything you state back in time, it is settling the new frontiers of the concerning states from the moment of the treaty become effective. This frontiers of Hungary are reset to the ones existed prior the Vienna Awards, which are considered hereby null and void (except Czechoslovakia, as Hungary ceded additional areas to Czechoslovakia).

Paris Treaty 1947 with Hungary: https://maint.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000004-0453.pdf "The frontier between Hungary and Czechoslovakia from the point common to the frontier of those two States and Austria to the point common to those two States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is hereby restored as it existed on January 1, 1938."

Why was there a new peace treaty with new borders in 1947 if border change things in 1938 did not happen as you claim?

You wrote: "Following the War that 1947 treaty that Hungary signed and fully agreed to specifically states that the treaty you hung up on as a legal, The First Vienna Award, was never legal at all."

Treaty text: "The decisions of the Vienna Award of November 2, 1938, are declared null and void." = The decisions in that former 1938 treaty became invalid, when the new treaty was signed in 1947.

Hungary did not sign and agree to make time jump. It is not true that 1938 border change was not legal in 1938, please consult also with authors of: USA map, NATGEO map, New York Times, UK Times... what I provided.

Treaty text: "The present Treaty, of which the Russian and English texts are authentic, shall be ratified by the Allied and Associated Powers. It shall also be ratified by Hungary. It shall come into force immediately upon the deposit of ratifications by the Union of Soviet Socialist RepubliCs, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America...With respect to each Allied or Associated Power whose instrument of ratification is thereafter deposited, the Treaty shall come into force upon the date of deposit."

Every new peace treaty puts the new provisions into effect at the moment of its signing, so it cannot replace the past, which is why the treaty states that the change occurs "at the moment of signing" or afterwards. The fact that the First Vienna Award loses its legal effect after signing is a natural consequence of the new treaty and the border change, as it means that the territories received at that time will no longer belong to Hungary, but to someone else. That does not mean that it would not have happened back in time in 1938, or that it would not have been Hungarian area in 1938 by an another treaty, but after the signing it will not be Hungarian area.

For example, Hungarian State Railways built railways in that area during the 1800s-1920. According to your time machine logic, does that mean the Hungarian State Railways did not own the railways it built just because that area became part of Czechoslovakia in 1920, and the railways then became the property of Czechoslovak State Railways?,

There have been no treaties in the world which may warp time so-far, sorry... OrionNimrod (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I will point you back to the wall of reliable sources again typed above by me all say it was an occupation and none of which you bother to address. You have a wall of text that's primarily made of your own personal arguments. In fact if I were to delete all of your text and just keep your few sources your conclusion wouldn't even be there. I also find interesting that you are arguing that it's legal but in the article First_Vienna_Award#Nullification is is sourced to Ladislav Deák that the First Vienna Award was found illegal after World War II and that from a legal standpoint was never legal at all. Deák compiled edition of three volumes of documents about the First Vienna Award and its consequences, and also he researched relationships between Czechoslovakia and Hungary with focus on Hungarian policy towards Slovakia. And your your really tearing the way that treaty down, which honestly more original research but it also takes away from the skilled diplomacy of Edvard Beneš who had the Soviet Union and Great Britain declaring it null and void in 1942 which of course Macartney discussed in "October fifteenth: a history of modern Hungary, 1929-1945, Vol. 1". Finally, the Britannica article is a tertiary source and also doesn't go into detail in that article about the First Vienna Award, which was never legal as Deák points out, but its is clear that the territory was occupied. I'm sure you said other things but honestly I'm going to read a wall of bullshit original research from and editor who has already admitted a heavy bias. So besides Segal, Rudnytsky, Darden, and who ever else I posted above, here's Deák making absolute garbage of your original research that it was legal in the first place. Oh no, your time machine theory, they didn't use Doc Brown after all and their actions weren't legal in the first place.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)